December 3, 2009

Docket Management Facility Re.: Standards for Living Organisms in Ships’

U.S. Department of Transportation Ballast Water Discharged in U.S. Waters

West Building Ground Floor (Docket ID No. USCG–2001–10486)

Room W12-140

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.

Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sir or Madam:

Golding Barge Line, Inc currently owns and operates 9 inland towboats and 22 inland tankbarges that will be 

adversely affected if the proposed Ballast Water regulations are implemented as written.

With regard to our 22 tank barges, we take great care in preventing any water from entering the void spaces due to 

the fact that the introduction of any water will introduce MIC bacteria and support corrosion, effectively reducing 

the life of the barge. However, given the fact that the barges could potentially be ballasted, they will fall under 

the proposed rule.

Our 9 inland towboats are newly constructed since 2005, and have been designed with a movable ballast system 

that uses potable water, which is moved internally around the boat to maintain an even trim as fuel is consumed 

on the vessel. The potable water is also used to supply water for toilets and the general cleaning of the vessel. 

This system was designed as a measure to prevent the use of river ballast and prevent the possibility that our 

vessels would contribute to the spread of invasive species in our waterway system.

Our company fully agrees with the stance taken by the American Waterways Operators as is attached and listed 

on the following pages. 

We specifically ask that vessels that do not ballast as a part of their normal operation, and boats utilizing 

potable water for ballast be exempt from the requirement to install ballast water treatment systems.

Given the current state of our economy and the depressed market conditions, our industry would be extremely 

burdened financially, if required to incur the expense of adding equipment of this costly equipment.

Sincerely,

Russell Moore

VP Operations

Golding Barge Line, Inc
Docket ID No. USCG–2001–10486

December 4, 2009

Page 2

The Administration Should Support a Uniform National Standard for Ballast Water

and Other Vessel Discharges

We note, first, the critical need for a uniform national standard for ballast water and other 

vessel discharges. The issuance of this NPRM is a stark reminder of the untenable state of 

affairs that currently exists with respect to the regulation of vessel discharges: the Coast 

Guard regulates ballast water under the National Invasive Species Act (NISA); the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates ballast water and other vessel discharges 

under the Clean Water Act’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

permit program; and, because neither NISA nor section 402 of the Clean Water Act preempts 

state regulation of ballast water and other vessel discharges, dozens of states have established 

their own regimes governing vessel discharges. This patchwork of federal and state 

authorities poses enormous difficulties for vessels operating in interstate commerce. (A 

barge tow traveling from Pittsburgh to New Orleans down the Ohio and Mississippi River 

systems, for example, travels through 11 states, each of which is free to establish its own 

unique requirements for vessel discharges in its waters.) While it is sometimes suggested 

that better coordination among federal and state authorities to avoid conflicting standards is 

the solution to this problem, coordination alone is insufficient. Even if the various federal 

agencies and state authorities were to agree on a common discharge standard, for example, 

vessel owners would still be faced with the significant burden of complying with the 

multiplicity of administrative requirements (reporting, recordkeeping, inspections, training, 

etc.) imposed by the different statutory or regulatory authorities governing vessel discharges. 

The real solution is to establish a new, uniform statutory framework for the regulation of 

ballast water and other vessel discharges – one that provides for effective, environmentally 

protective standards based on sound science and is tailored to address the operational realities 

of mobile sources in interstate commerce. We urge the Administration to take a leadership 

role in working with Congress to bring about such a solution. 
Docket ID No. USCG–2001–10486

December 4, 2009

Page 3

The Rulemaking Record Does Not Support the Proposed Regulations

AWO is deeply disappointed that, even after the many years that this NPRM has been under 

development, the proposal is based on inaccurate assumptions and incomplete research that 

do not support the regulations as proposed. These deficiencies have led to a one-size-fits-all 

proposal that has not and cannot be justified in its application to barges and towing vessels in 

the U.S. domestic trade. 

First, the rulemaking record simply does not support the proposal that was published in the 

Federal Register. Egregiously, neither the Preliminary Regulatory Analysis nor the Draft 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (DPEIS) even discusses the two-tiered 

standard approach proposed in the NPRM. Throughout these documents, the proposed Phase 

I standard is referred to as the “preferred alternative,” and analysis and justification for this 

standard is provided. Neither the Phase II standard nor the idea of a two-phase approach to 

standard setting is even discussed in the regulatory analysis or DPEIS, much less analyzed 

for environmental benefit and economic feasibility. This glaring procedural defect suggests 

the troubling conclusion that the inclusion of the Phase II standard was a last-minute political 

decision that was not subjected to the thorough and dispassionate analysis that is 1) required 

by law and 2) the standard of care that the regulated public has a right to expect from 

government. We urge the Administration not to short-circuit the regulatory process and to 

ensure that all required procedural steps are undertaken as it proceeds toward the 

development of a final rule. 

Moreover, the NPRM is also based on numerous inaccurate assumptions about the affected 

vessel population and its operating characteristics. For example, the regulatory analysis 

states that vessels under 100 feet in length, vessels operating on rivers and tugboats towing 

astern generally do not carry ballast water. In fact, inland towboats of all sizes routinely 

carry ballast water to maintain trim as fuel is burned during a voyage; coastal tugboats carry 

ballast for trim and stability; and many barges, both inland and coastal, are ballasted for trim 

and stability, to ensure proper tow configuration, or to allow for better seakeeping when 

empty. An AWO member survey, which generated responses from 52 member companies 

(or about 20 percent of AWO’s carrier membership) identified more than 1,300 inland and 

coastal towing vessels and barges that carry ballast water in this small sample alone. The 

majority of these vessels have not been accounted for in the Coast Guard’s estimate of 2,600 

U.S. vessels that would be affected by the notice of proposed rulemaking. 
Docket ID No. USCG–2001–10486

December 4, 2009

Page 4

The regulatory analysis also assumes that the proposed requirements would only affect 

vessels with the capacity to carry large volumes of ballast water (450,000 gallons and up) and 

flow rates of 1,100 gallons per minute or more. In fact, the proposed rule would affect 

vessels with much smaller capacity and much lower flow rates. A typical inland towboat has 

20,000-40,000 gallons of ballast water capacity; a typical coastal tug has 20,000-70,000 

gallons. A small harbor tug might have a capacity of 2,000-3,000 gallons. While barges, 

especially oceangoing barges, have larger ballast capacities, the ballast capacity of many 

barges is still a fraction of that assumed in the regulatory analysis. Flow rates for barges and 

towing vessels discharging ballast water are also considerably less than those of other 

commercial vessels, ranging from 20 to 250 gallons per minute. 

Ballast Water Treatment Should Not Be Required for Towing Vessels and Barges 

in the U.S. Domestic Trade

Without an accurate understanding of the affected vessel population and its characteristics, 

the Coast Guard cannot make a defensible assessment of the scientific basis for, cost and 

cost-benefit of, and technical and operational feasibility of requiring ballast water treatment 

systems on a particular class of vessels. In fact, there is considerable evidence, or in some 

cases lack of evidence, to argue against the application of ballast water treatment 

requirements to towing vessels and barges in the U.S. domestic trade. 

First, the DPEIS provides no evidence to suggest that ballast water discharged by towing 

vessels or barges operating exclusively on the inland river system, or within the same coastal 

ecosystem, has contributed to the introduction or spread of invasive species in U.S. waters. 

When the Coast Guard instituted nationwide ballast water reporting requirements in 2004, 

the agency told AWO that one of the principal purposes of collecting this data was to map 

vessel movements and ballast water discharge patterns against invasive species flows. AWO 

was told that the Coast Guard would use this information to determine where ballast water

discharges had contributed to the introduction or spread of invasive species and thus, where 

and on which classes of vessels ballast water treatment requirements would be justified. 

While the National Ballast Water Information Clearinghouse (NBIC) contains a wealth of 

data submitted by vessel owners over the past five years, we are aware of no effort by the 

Coast Guard to analyze the data to see what it suggests about the role of vessels, and 

particularly domestic vessels, in the introduction and spread of invasive species. We note, as 

well, that the National Invasive Species Act exempts from ballast water management 

requirements crude oil tankers in the U.S. coastwise trade, presumably because they pose no 

risk of introducing invasive species into U.S. waters. It would be patently unfair to subject 
Docket ID No. USCG–2001–10486

December 4, 2009

Page 5

domestic towing vessels and barges with much smaller volumes of ballast water capacity to a 

different standard.

Second, AWO is not aware of any ballast water treatment system that has been approved, 

installed or even tested on vessels with the operating characteristics of many tugboats, 

towboats and barges, such as the following:

 Vessels operating exclusively in freshwater: Well over half of U.S. towing vessels 

and barges never operate in saltwater, and while some ballast water treatment 

chemicals can work on organisms in freshwater environments, AWO is not aware of 

any ballast water treatment system that has been tested or can be used on freshwater 

vessels. Indeed, in AWO’s conversations with treatment system manufacturers, it has 

been suggested that treatment systems for freshwater vessels have not yet been 

developed because their risk of introducing invasive species is so small.

 Vessels of very limited size. Many towing vessels are less than 125 feet long, with 

small engine rooms averaging between 900 and 1300 square feet. While treatment 

systems range in size, one of the smallest ones would take up about one-tenth of this 

space. In a towing vessel engineroom, there is virtually no space not already 

dedicated to machinery or walkways. Keeping these areas clear and leaving enough 

room for engineers to maintain the existing equipment is critical to the safe operation 

of the vessel. Moreover, since ballast water treatment systems have not been tested on 

tugboats or towboats, it is unclear whether or not their installation is even possible on 

vessels of such small size. 

 Vessels with very low ballast water flow rates. The Preliminary Regulatory Analysis 

examined vessels with flow rates of 1,100 gallons per minute and above; however, 

the flow rates of some tugboats are as low as 20 gallons per minute, and average flow 

rates for typical towing vessels are approximately 250 gallons per minute. Since flow 

rates must be high enough to pump water through the treatment system, vessels with 

low flow rates must install additional pumps in order to ensure that the system will 

work effectively. Not only was the cost of additional pumping equipment not 

assessed in the rulemaking record, it has not been demonstrated whether treatment 

systems employing additional pumps are feasible for installation on barges or towing 

vessels. 

 Vessels without installed ballast water piping. The ballast tanks of many barges and 

towing vessels are simply void spaces filled with water to keep the vessel stable. 
Docket ID No. USCG–2001–10486

December 4, 2009

Page 6

 In many cases, these tanks do not have any piping; they are filled and emptied 

shoreside with hoses or portable pumps. In order to install a ballast water treatment 

system, piping would have to be installed, an extensive and expensive process that 

may require developing an approved vessel-specific design, conducting stability 

studies and taking the vessel out of service for weeks.

 Tank barges. There are serious safety and possibly regulatory impediments to the 

installation of ballast water treatment systems that rely on electricity on tank barges. 

Coast Guard regulations for electric equipment on vessels (46 CFR 111.105-31(l)) 

prohibit the placement of such equipment within 10 feet of any cargo tank vent outlet, 

cargo tank ullage opening, cargo pipe flange, or cargo valve unless it is intrinsically 

safe, explosion proof, or purged and pressurized in order to prevent cargo vapors 

from exploding. It is unclear whether and how ballast water treatment systems could 

be installed on inland tank barges so as not to conflict with this regulation and avoid 

posing serious personnel safety risks. 

Third, requiring the installation of treatment systems costing a half-million dollars or more 

on thousands of towing vessels and barges with very limited ballast water capacity is most 

likely cost-prohibitive, and surely not cost-effective. A 2009 survey by the California State 

Lands Commission contained cost estimates for 14 ballast water treatment systems, ranging 

in cost from $150,000 to $2.3 million per system, with an average cost of $895,000. These 

estimates do not include the cost of removing the vessel from service in order to install the 

system, any modifications to the vessel (as would almost certainly be required for towing 

vessels and barges, for the reasons discussed above), or operation and maintenance of the 

system once installed. These cost estimates are truly staggering when compared to the value 

of a barge or towing vessel on which such a system might be installed. An inland barge can 

cost $400,000, less than half the cost of the average treatment system examined in the 

California survey! An inland towing vessel can cost as little as $3 million and a coastal 

tugboat as little as $5 million, meaning a vessel owner could be required to install a piece of 

equipment worth one-third to one-fifth of the vessel’s value. These costs (which were neither 

assessed nor justified in their application to most towing vessels and barges, given the Coast 

Guard’s erroneous assumptions about the affected vessel population) are particularly 

egregious given the very high percentage of barge and towing companies that are small 

businesses. The Congressionally-authorized Towing Safety Advisory Committee estimated 

in a 2008 analysis that some 90 percent of barge and towing companies qualify as small 

businesses under the Small Business Administration definition. These costs must be 

considered not only in absolute terms, but against the backdrop of the lack of evidence that 

domestic towing vessels or barges have contributed to the introduction or spread of invasive 

species, the smaller volumes of ballast water transported by these vessels, and the 
Docket ID No. USCG–2001–10486

December 4, 2009

Page 7

technological and operational impediments to the installation of ballast water treatment 

systems on towing vessels and barges.

The Coast Guard Should Exempt Other Vessel Operations That Do Not Pose a Risk of 

Introducing Invasive Species 

In addition to not requiring ballast water treatment systems on towing vessels and barges in 

the U.S. domestic trade, the Coast Guard should exempt any vessel with the following 

operational characteristics, which pose little or no risk of introducing or spreading invasive 

species:

 Vessels that use only municipal or commercial water for ballast. Many towing 

vessels and barges fall into this category, using potable water from shoreside sources 

for ballast instead of river or sea water. 

 Vessels that carry ballast water or have ballast tanks but do not take on or discharge 

ballast water in U.S. waters. These vessels do not pose a risk of transferring invasive 

species into or within U.S. waters and should not be required to install treatment 

systems. 

 Vessels that operate in more than one Captain of the Port (COTP) zone but only take 

on and discharge ballast water in a single zone. A towing vessel might, for example, 

operate throughout the inland river system but only take on ballast water to ride lower 

in the water when passing under the low bridges near Chicago, discharging the ballast 

water in the same zone when the bridge transit is completed. Such vessels should be 

exempted for the same reasons as vessels that operate exclusively within a single 

COTP zone. 

We also urge the Coast Guard to correct what appears to be a technical error in the regulatory 

text and ensure that the proposed exemption for vessels operating exclusively in one COTP 

zone (33 CFR 151.2105) extends to the ballast water management requirements (33 CFR 

151.2025), consistent with the description of this provision in the preamble to the NPRM.
Docket ID No. USCG–2001–10486

December 4, 2009

Page 8

Eliminate the Two-Tier Approach or Provide Lifetime Grandfathering 

for Vessels with Installed Treatment Systems

AWO urges the Coast Guard to eliminate the proposed two-tier standard and adopt a single 

ballast water discharge standard that is both effective in neutralizing invasive species in 

ballast water and practicable for installation on vessels. While we are sympathetic to the 

conceptual rationale for the two-tier approach – set an achievable standard in the near term 

and ramp up to a higher standard if and when technology allows – it is simply impractical to 

expect a vessel owner to install a treatment system costing as much as $1 million and then 

replace that system before the end of its useful life. We see two options to avoid this 

unacceptable situation: first, the Coast Guard could elect to conduct a practicability review 

now to assess whether the proposed Phase II standard is feasible and, if so, eliminate Phase I 

and establish an appropriate timeline for installation of Phase II systems. Alternatively, the 

Coast Guard could implement the Phase I standard as proposed (and subject to the 

modifications discussed in these comments), with the proviso that any vessel that installs a 

system meeting the Phase I standard will not be required to replace that system before the 

end of the system’s, or the vessel’s, useful life. If a practicability review subsequently allows 

for adoption of the Phase II standard, the Coast Guard could apply the Phase II requirement 

to new vessels (or vessels replacing systems that have reached the end of their useful life) 

only.

The Practicability Review Should Ensure That Systems Are Practicable 

for Any Class of Vessels on Which They Will Be Required

AWO urges the Coast Guard to ensure that the proposed practicability review is robust and 

comprehensive. Specifically, we recommend that the practicability review examine the 

following factors and ensure that any proposed standard is:

 Effective in neutralizing invasive species. This requires ensuring that tools and 

protocols exist to measure the effectiveness of the standard;.

 Technologically feasible for installation on the vessels that will be required to install 

treatment systems meeting the standard. Treatment systems should not be required 

on any class of vessels unless the system has been tested and proven practicable given 

those vessels’ engineroom size and design, ballast water capacity, tank configuration, 

flow rate, etc.; 
Docket ID No. USCG–2001–10486

December 4, 2009

Page 9

 Commercially available. That is, systems meeting the standard are on the market and 

available in sufficient quantity to allow for purchase and installation by the 

population of affected vessels on the required regulatory schedule;

 Safe for use with the characteristics of the vessels to which it will be applied (i.e., 

proximity to flammable or combustible cargo, etc.); and,

 Cost-effective for use on the vessels that will be required to use it. A system whose 

cost would drive vessel owners out of business or impose severe economic hardship 

is not cost-effective and should not be required. 

While the Coast Guard has specifically solicited comments on the factors to be included in 

the practicability review that takes place before implementation of the Phase II standard, the 

same considerations are no less relevant to the application of the Phase I standard. We urge 

the Coast Guard to ensure that a complete analysis of these factors is conducted in the 

process of finalizing the proposed regulations and before ballast water treatment system 

requirements are applied to any given vessel class. 
Docket ID No. USCG–2001–10486

December 4, 2009

Page 10

Conclusion

AWO urges the Coast Guard to:

 Play a lead role in encouraging the Administration to support a uniform federal 

statutory framework for the regulation of ballast water and other vessel discharges;

 Ensure that the rulemaking record is complete and accurate, following all required 

procedural steps and reflecting accurate assumptions about the affected vessel 

population, before proceeding to finalize the proposed regulations;

 Refrain from requiring treatment standards on towing vessels and barges in the U.S. 

domestic trade;

 Exempt from the proposed requirements vessels using municipal or commercial water 

for ballast, vessels that do not discharge ballast water in U.S. waters, and vessels that 

only take on and discharge ballast water in a single COTP zone, in addition to vessels 

that operate exclusively within a single COTP zone;

 Eliminate the two-tier standard or, alternatively, provide that a vessel installing a 

treatment system that complies with the Phase I standard will not be required to 

replace that system if and when a Phase II standard is implemented; and,

 Conduct a robust and comprehensive practicability review prior to requiring ballast 

water treatment systems on any class of vessels.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. We would be pleased to answer any questions or 

provide further information as the Coast Guard sees fit.